ORIGINAL: Mentor I like the uncertainty, as commanders did not face opposing units with flags waving indicating their combat strength. This had to be learned through recon, intel, and probing attacks. This is all modeled remarkably well in the game system. I can not go so far as to remove the CV totally from the unit counters however, I need some idea.

The point being made is that there appears to be a systematic error in the CV, in that the German values are consistently being ~doubled. I tend to agree that this is most likely due to leadership. If this is the case, then I think it is fine and fits in with the rest of the FOW effects. Again, leaders did not have their ratings in the various game parameters tattooed on their foreheads.

In my opinion too much knowledge of the game mechanics / formulae ruins the game. It allows the player to game the game, rather than playing it.

+1

_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

I do not want the game to be less random. What I want is that the values displayed on the counters will be in the middle of the random scatter. Now they are too low.

As such, if I have a unit which will have strength in battle 5,8,10,8,6,7 - and now the unit is displayed as 5 on the counter, I think that it is incorrect and it should be displayed as 7, as that is closer to the average you should expect. That is all what I ask for. I do not ask for any changes in the game.

if I have a unit which will have strength in battle 5,8,10,8,6,7 - and now the unit is displayed as 5 on the counter

What do you call strength in the battle? Modified CV? If yes, in reality these values are not even of the same order. So if you see Modified CV as 10 and on counter CV is 5, it means real values are ~10000 (10000-10999) and ~500 (500-599). Can on map CV still be used to predict in battle performance? Yes it can, but together with other characteristics. Can it be more accurate? Probably yes, but it is not an easy task. Not to mention all non-linear friendly factors, in battle strength has one big unknown - performance of the enemy with thousands of various rolls.

I understand what you are asking for in desiring a better "average" of CV. Without the leader ratings of all the leaders in the unit's chain of command being factored in, you can't get what you want. I know that if you change an army leader the CV ratings of the units don't change on the map or in the initial CV rating, but in combat they will perform very differently if under a great leader than a poor one. It was decided early on not to have the leaders factored into these unit CV values. I'm not even sure how easy/possible it is to account for what they do in combat to get a good "average" CV effect even if we wanted to. Leaders are very important and they are a major FOW element in the game as you don't even know what enemy leaders you are up against. We think some amount of FOW is a good thing for a game and this is one of those FOW areas. I can't claim that the results you pointed to are fully explained by leader ratings, but, IIRC, a review of combat screen displayed CVs was done many months ago by Pavel and after this we felt that they were in good shape. There are occasional oddities that I've seen that are way out of whack, with a unit in combat showing a very large CV initially even though it should be very small, but the final number is correctly small. This is rare and appears to be a display bug of some kind that we have never been able to track down because it is not repeatable.

Toidi, I appreciate where you're coming from. Maybe I see lemonade where you only see lemons. I love the specificity of boardgames as much as anyone. Gary's computer game designs harken back to boardgames but are actually quite different in many ways.

Next post I expect to see from someone: Why don't we know what enemy leader we're fighting?

I understand what you are asking for in desiring a better "average" of CV. Without the leader ratings of all the leaders in the unit's chain of command being factored in, you can't get what you want. I know that if you change an army leader the CV ratings of the units don't change on the map or in the initial CV rating, but in combat they will perform very differently if under a great leader than a poor one. It was decided early on not to have the leaders factored into these unit CV values. I'm not even sure how easy/possible it is to account for what they do in combat to get a good "average" CV effect even if we wanted to. Leaders are very important and they are a major FOW element in the game as you don't even know what enemy leaders you are up against. We think some amount of FOW is a good thing for a game and this is one of those FOW areas. I can't claim that the results you pointed to are fully explained by leader ratings, but, IIRC, a review of combat screen displayed CVs was done many months ago by Pavel and after this we felt that they were in good shape. There are occasional oddities that I've seen that are way out of whack, with a unit in combat showing a very large CV initially even though it should be very small, but the final number is correctly small. This is rare and appears to be a display bug of some kind that we have never been able to track down because it is not repeatable.

Toidi, I appreciate where you're coming from. Maybe I see lemonade where you only see lemons. I love the specificity of boardgames as much as anyone. Gary's computer game designs harken back to boardgames but are actually quite different in many ways.

Next post I expect to see from someone: Why don't we know what enemy leader we're fighting?

Ok. You made a design decision which can easily mislead players who are not hardcore enough. I am probably not hardcore enough as it does mislead me. You believe that the decision you made was correct. I believe it was not because it leads to lack of important information and misjudgment. You believe that huge misjudgment is the part of war and as such should be build into the game. I believe that issues like that kill the fun in the game, especially that next time I will play I will obviously do multiply the values on the counters by 2 and act accordingly. You consider that this is the part of learning to play. I consider this is bad design and believe that "learn to play" should not include finding out how much the values on the counter are misleading in given period of the game.

I don't think I can make my arguments more clear; I also believe you do understand rather what I meant. So, the only thing I can say is that I am disappointed and actually the big brand in my mind which is "Gary Grigsby" just got a bit downgraded.

And yes, you are 100% right, the lack of knowledge which leader we are fighting against, is in my opinion another design decision which I would revisit, if I were responsible for the game. It seems that we just think differently.

Thanks for your time Joel & Helpless and all the people who contributed to this thread... I appreciate all your responses, even though I disagree with many of them.

I understand what you are asking for in desiring a better "average" of CV. Without the leader ratings of all the leaders in the unit's chain of command being factored in, you can't get what you want. I know that if you change an army leader the CV ratings of the units don't change on the map or in the initial CV rating, but in combat they will perform very differently if under a great leader than a poor one. It was decided early on not to have the leaders factored into these unit CV values. I'm not even sure how easy/possible it is to account for what they do in combat to get a good "average" CV effect even if we wanted to. Leaders are very important and they are a major FOW element in the game as you don't even know what enemy leaders you are up against. We think some amount of FOW is a good thing for a game and this is one of those FOW areas. I can't claim that the results you pointed to are fully explained by leader ratings, but, IIRC, a review of combat screen displayed CVs was done many months ago by Pavel and after this we felt that they were in good shape. There are occasional oddities that I've seen that are way out of whack, with a unit in combat showing a very large CV initially even though it should be very small, but the final number is correctly small. This is rare and appears to be a display bug of some kind that we have never been able to track down because it is not repeatable.

Toidi, I appreciate where you're coming from. Maybe I see lemonade where you only see lemons. I love the specificity of boardgames as much as anyone. Gary's computer game designs harken back to boardgames but are actually quite different in many ways.

Next post I expect to see from someone: Why don't we know what enemy leader we're fighting?

Now I'm beginning to wonder why there are values at all on the face of the counters. Also, pet peeve of mine, the "=" sign is misused. Now I know I'm out on a limb with that one but frankly the "=" sign means something very specific in the math and science realms and the game misuses the sign.

Now I'm beginning to wonder why there are values at all on the face of the counters. Also, pet peeve of mine, the "=" sign is misused. Now I know I'm out on a limb with that one but frankly the "=" sign means something very specific in the math and science realms and the game misuses the sign.

Sorry in advance for the outrage.

The "-" sign also means something very specific in math and science. Are you OK with the usage of the "-" sign?

Almost any symbol means something very specific in some discipline or other. What would you suggest as alternative ways to indicate what information is being displayed on the counters?

It seems like the nitpicking is over the top on this forum. I really don't see how the developers could win based on some of the feedback that I see here. I'm glad I'm not a game developer, and if I were, I certainly would NOT have a public forum created for users to pick apart my product. Kudos to them for doing so in the interest of improving the game, but geez you guys can be harsh.

Now I'm beginning to wonder why there are values at all on the face of the counters. Also, pet peeve of mine, the "=" sign is misused. Now I know I'm out on a limb with that one but frankly the "=" sign means something very specific in the math and science realms and the game misuses the sign.

Sorry in advance for the outrage.

... It seems like the nitpicking is over the top on this forum. I really don't see how the developers could win based on some of the feedback that I see here. I'm glad I'm not a game developer, and if I were, I certainly would NOT have a public forum created for users to pick apart my product. Kudos to them for doing so in the interest of improving the game, but geez you guys can be harsh.

+1

I actually took his post as a joke... but not sure. Either way its funny

I understand what you are asking for in desiring a better "average" of CV. Without the leader ratings of all the leaders in the unit's chain of command being factored in, you can't get what you want. I know that if you change an army leader the CV ratings of the units don't change on the map or in the initial CV rating, but in combat they will perform very differently if under a great leader than a poor one. It was decided early on not to have the leaders factored into these unit CV values. I'm not even sure how easy/possible it is to account for what they do in combat to get a good "average" CV effect even if we wanted to. Leaders are very important and they are a major FOW element in the game as you don't even know what enemy leaders you are up against. We think some amount of FOW is a good thing for a game and this is one of those FOW areas. I can't claim that the results you pointed to are fully explained by leader ratings, but, IIRC, a review of combat screen displayed CVs was done many months ago by Pavel and after this we felt that they were in good shape. There are occasional oddities that I've seen that are way out of whack, with a unit in combat showing a very large CV initially even though it should be very small, but the final number is correctly small. This is rare and appears to be a display bug of some kind that we have never been able to track down because it is not repeatable.

Toidi, I appreciate where you're coming from. Maybe I see lemonade where you only see lemons. I love the specificity of boardgames as much as anyone. Gary's computer game designs harken back to boardgames but are actually quite different in many ways.

Next post I expect to see from someone: Why don't we know what enemy leader we're fighting?

Ok. You made a design decision which can easily mislead players who are not hardcore enough. I am probably not hardcore enough as it does mislead me. You believe that the decision you made was correct. I believe it was not because it leads to lack of important information and misjudgment. You believe that huge misjudgment is the part of war and as such should be build into the game. I believe that issues like that kill the fun in the game, especially that next time I will play I will obviously do multiply the values on the counters by 2 and act accordingly. You consider that this is the part of learning to play. I consider this is bad design and believe that "learn to play" should not include finding out how much the values on the counter are misleading in given period of the game.

I don't think I can make my arguments more clear; I also believe you do understand rather what I meant. So, the only thing I can say is that I am disappointed and actually the big brand in my mind which is "Gary Grigsby" just got a bit downgraded.

And yes, you are 100% right, the lack of knowledge which leader we are fighting against, is in my opinion another design decision which I would revisit, if I were responsible for the game. It seems that we just think differently.

Thanks for your time Joel & Helpless and all the people who contributed to this thread... I appreciate all your responses, even though I disagree with many of them.

These issues are a product of the game engine being too complex in the wrong areas. You don't model the random chances of combat with complex models that take account of every factor - you model them using abstraction and chance. Problems of this nature are bound to continue in the series and only the most hardcore gamers are likely to spend the time required to find the workarounds or to develop the lateral thinking techniques needed.

As to the question of 'what commander are we facing', I am struggling to think of a major campaign or battle in history where this wasn't known, or at least surmised, generally by taking prisoners/deserters in the weeks preceding.

Now I'm beginning to wonder why there are values at all on the face of the counters. Also, pet peeve of mine, the "=" sign is misused. Now I know I'm out on a limb with that one but frankly the "=" sign means something very specific in the math and science realms and the game misuses the sign.

Sorry in advance for the outrage.

The "-" sign also means something very specific in math and science. Are you OK with the usage of the "-" sign?

Almost any symbol means something very specific in some discipline or other. What would you suggest as alternative ways to indicate what information is being displayed on the counters?

It seems like the nitpicking is over the top on this forum. I really don't see how the developers could win based on some of the feedback that I see here. I'm glad I'm not a game developer, and if I were, I certainly would NOT have a public forum created for users to pick apart my product. Kudos to them for doing so in the interest of improving the game, but geez you guys can be harsh.

What would I suggest ? I dunno how about realistic and meaningful and accurate values for offense, defence and movement ? Too much to ask for ?

I did admit that this is a pet peeve of mine, but for me it is important. "1=9" and "2?6" is just nonsense to me.

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H. What would I suggest ? I dunno how about realistic and meaningful and accurate values for offense, defence and movement ? Too much to ask for ?

Suppose that's were different people are having very different ideas. I prefer "qualifiers" as vague as a real field commander would have faced them, instead of accurate numbers: Intuition, derived from knowing the units and commanders past performance coupled with returns on supply stats, vehicle readiness, ammo etc. This is an origin for "human errors".

A real commander has to be much more careful about his orders, not only because he only has one head and career he can loose -- not so a player, he doesn't loose much by overextending, sacrificial/misjudged assaults etc. etc. Game goes on, there is no dice roll determining whether the game suddenly ends because the CIC is loosing his job. As such, uncertainty should lead to more conservative orders and slower op-tempo. And this uncertainty that a real field commander must have faced is probably very crucial for getting the right feeling of being up back in time in his spot. I guess without this factor, any game like this will not feel like having much to do with the war it is supposed to be related to. Think of a game with FOW, and one without any FOW and perfectly accurate --even though average-- CV: They do play out very differently, especially human-vs-human, as you can proceed in much more computable fashion in one case, whereas you have to be more careful in the other. One shows the characteristics of uncertainties and human errors from real life, the other is more like chess or systematic number crunching.

Seems like this is another area of the game, where in an ideal world with infinite development-budget, a optional choice would have been added (in the main menu) to choose between qualifiers and numbers for CV, leader ratings, disruption etc., and the FOW/accuracy of these given to the player. Then everyone could have his/her favorite flavor. Perhaps such little details, maybe not taking much to code, would broaden the base of interested people beyond either the hard-core simulation fans on the one side, or the "clear rules and formulas game" group on the other. Or attract critics by both for choosing a compromise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H. I did admit that this is a pet peeve of mine, but for me it is important. "1=9" and "2?6" is just nonsense to me.

I understand your concerns, but mathematical operators, i.e. symbols, are often redefined in different contexts. A * can mean a lot of things depending on what it is operating on (numbers, vectors/matrices (tensors), functions, functionals etc.). And in informatics it is still another story. What is a ** in a mathematical sense? Not seen it yet to be used there. I wouldn't bother about any symbols meanings as long as their redefinition is explained.

Why dont they just double the CV values displayed on the German counters, then...that way they will be wrong (halved) only a few times, instead of being wrong now (doubled) most of the time.

While you are at it, just halve the Russian defense values for the same reason. That way when you run into Zhukov, you will know it.

I am partial to removing the CV altogether off the counter, and replacing it with..umm... Remaning ToE %.

Nooo! Then it might play out like (God forbid) GDW Fire in the East or some other waste of space table-top board game...

SPI was known for East front games that had all the Sov units as untried. Didn't know what they were until they fought. In Proud Monster Deluxe, not only are they untried, but you can't examine the unit stacks.

The element of the unknown is why I appreciate this game. I remember those hidden /untried units and it made things more exciting. When playing War in the East, War in the West and War in Europe we would not allow anyone to examine stacks. What did Han Solo say, "Never tell me the odds."

Why dont they just double the CV values displayed on the German counters, then...that way they will be wrong (halved) only a few times, instead of being wrong now (doubled) most of the time.

While you are at it, just halve the Russian defense values for the same reason. That way when you run into Zhukov, you will know it.

I am partial to removing the CV altogether off the counter, and replacing it with..umm... Remaning ToE %.

Nooo! Then it might play out like (God forbid) GDW Fire in the East or some other waste of space table-top board game...

SPI was known for East front games that had all the Sov units as untried. Didn't know what they were until they fought. In Proud Monster Deluxe, not only are they untried, but you can't examine the unit stacks.

That would make some people's heads explode.

True and there were others that used the same technique. But once the unit was exposed to combat, it was flipped over and it's strength was known.

Why dont they just double the CV values displayed on the German counters, then...that way they will be wrong (halved) only a few times, instead of being wrong now (doubled) most of the time.

While you are at it, just halve the Russian defense values for the same reason. That way when you run into Zhukov, you will know it.

I am partial to removing the CV altogether off the counter, and replacing it with..umm... Remaning ToE %.

Nooo! Then it might play out like (God forbid) GDW Fire in the East or some other waste of space table-top board game...

SPI was known for East front games that had all the Sov units as untried. Didn't know what they were until they fought. In Proud Monster Deluxe, not only are they untried, but you can't examine the unit stacks.

That would make some people's heads explode.

I like it. The untried stacks, not the exploding heads, though that would cool as well ;)

Perhaps the CV on friendly units should be closer to 'accurate' than enemy units.

Friendly units could show the expected CV, enemy units just the unit type and some info regarding composition etc, subject to detection levels. The player then needs to make a judgement about the likely outcome rather than (a) relying on meaningful enemy CV values or (b) looking at meaningless enemy values. Better FoW rather than very misleading numbers that a new player (consumer, customer, word-of-mouth marketer, etc.) believes to be somewhat accurate.

The bigger issue for the Soviet player is the way that his CV values leap up during the winter and plummet again come March '42. Soviet CVs should not change during this period - it's the Axis CVs that need to plummet in Dec '41 and slowly creep up again in the New Year.

Why dont they just double the CV values displayed on the German counters, then...that way they will be wrong (halved) only a few times, instead of being wrong now (doubled) most of the time.

While you are at it, just halve the Russian defense values for the same reason. That way when you run into Zhukov, you will know it.

I am partial to removing the CV altogether off the counter, and replacing it with..umm... Remaning ToE %.

Nooo! Then it might play out like (God forbid) GDW Fire in the East or some other waste of space table-top board game...

SPI was known for East front games that had all the Sov units as untried. Didn't know what they were until they fought. In Proud Monster Deluxe, not only are they untried, but you can't examine the unit stacks.

That would make some people's heads explode.

True and there were others that used the same technique. But once the unit was exposed to combat, it was flipped over and it's strength was known.

Yeah. But neither player can ever examine the other's stacks to see what's under the top unit. At least in PMD.

Why dont they just double the CV values displayed on the German counters, then...that way they will be wrong (halved) only a few times, instead of being wrong now (doubled) most of the time.

While you are at it, just halve the Russian defense values for the same reason. That way when you run into Zhukov, you will know it.

I am partial to removing the CV altogether off the counter, and replacing it with..umm... Remaning ToE %.

Nooo! Then it might play out like (God forbid) GDW Fire in the East or some other waste of space table-top board game...

SPI was known for East front games that had all the Sov units as untried. Didn't know what they were until they fought. In Proud Monster Deluxe, not only are they untried, but you can't examine the unit stacks.

That would make some people's heads explode.

I like it. The untried stacks, not the exploding heads, though that would cool as well ;)

Toidi, if we did as you suggested, the displays would be equally if not more deceptive.

All displayed CVs in this game are provisional, at best. Too many factors depend on in combat effects that cannot be fully predicted ex ante.

Also, March madness is very very weird. You shouldn't use that as a data sample to predict what happens at any given point in the war. I'm not exactly sure what's up with March of 42, but it's off somehow.

Is the March '42 'Madness' problem fixed yet? Complete game breaker for me.

I think it's more a case of a bunch of blizzard junkies going through withdrawal symptoms once the blizzard juice wears off.

If the Soviets do well during the winter, it's almost inevitably going to be the case that they will have a bunch of threadbare and exhausted divisions at the leading edge, and probably with sketchy supply. You can win yourself to death during the blizzard and burn out the Red Army. (Even now this is possible. Kamil may have done it in his present game.)

The blizzard effects cover up that weakness, so when it goes away, you're left with a really bad hangover.

I find that the number of attacking troops gives me a better feel than anything else; even in the mud I can can predict victory: 100,000 versus a division always seems to win unless behind a river in fort, etc.